Canadian Soccer Business (CSB)

[SF]

On 6/10/2022 at 2:21 AM, Soro17 said:

I have read some of your other posts, and your starting position seems to be that everyone is acting in bad faith and they are all a bunch of corrupt scammers. This is a facile and conspiratorial starting point which I should probably avoid engagement with. But...

I am on this forum because I enjoy watching the various Canadian national teams and this is one of (if not) the best places to read about them. With respect to your other points, I would say this: each amateur sports association in this country has its governance challenges. Rugby Canada is likely the worst, but Cricket Canada, Alpine Canada and Field Hockey Canada have all had recent governance issues that have made the news. I have no doubt swimming, gymnastics, name a sport, all have their problems. The answer to solving these problems, in my view, is not to have the federal government intervene in each instance where there is upset at decisions made by management of not-for-profit corporations and their boards of directors. Generally speaking, my view is that the federal government should not be in the business of reviewing, approving and undoing private contractual arrangements of not-for-profit entities and their business partners. The federal government is doing poorly on so many fronts (Phoenix payroll, failed ship-building procurement, failed military procurement, botched vaccine procurement and roll-out, staffing at airports, the list goes on) - I don't see how their involvement could help on any level. I don't think they have any unique expertise to bring to bear. Someone mentioned an audit, the reality is that the CSA has published audited financial statements from PWC, one of the big 4 global accounting firms. PWC has an obligation to withhold their audit report if they find evidence of fraud. You can look it up - PWC signed a clean audit report. As a citizen of this country, I want the federal government to focus on getting the important things right, not the petty bullshit that is the CSA and whether or not the CSA struck a bad business deal. I also realize that as a private citizen, I am not entitled to all the particulars of a private business deal, just because I read on the internet that someone thinks the deal sucks and the board must be corrupt. 

The answer to the calls for transparency and reform of course lie in CSA governance. The bylaws are available on-line and you can look up the process for nominating directors and officers. There are some obvious areas for improvement and they start with grassroots changes - i.e. putting in the hard work at the Provincial member association level to bring forth changes at the national level. Currently, the voting members (provincial associations, player reps, professional coaches) get to elect 6 directors based on regional representation, these six directors then get to elect 6 independent directors (which are then ratified by the voting members again). The board terms are staggered three-year terms, which creates board entrenchment issues meaning it is difficult to do a wholesale change of the board (there is some benefit to board continuity). In any event, all this is to say that changes can be made and there is an avenue for change if committed people want to. Changes might include revisions to the bylaws to require that truly independent and qualified directors be elected. Changes might include requiring certain professional designations in order to serve on the board. Changes could include the manner in who gets to elect directors (why not have at large positions elected by all registered players under the CSA umbrella). New board committees with established responsibilities touching on issues requiring particular expertise could struck. None of this stuff is stuff that the federal government should be doing, even if it could. 

 

This is a good summary.  There are avenues to change the governance, but they are generally slow moving.  To be honest, that's probably the way it should be (even if many, including myself, think the status quo level of performance is poor).

[red card]

Articles posted on this thread and other articles have stated or has Garber saying SUM has paid US$300 million over 19 years or US$15.8 million/yr to USSF. 

An SI article has Garber saying SUM paid guaranteed revenue of US$300 million to USSF over the life of the agreement. But then later on, SI has Garber saying SUM has paid $US190m to fund ops & programs since 2004. But guaranteed payments totalled US$300m till 2022.

The even later on, Garber says SUM's average annual payout to USSF was US$30m. This could imply the payout increased over the latter half of the agreement and the payout was lower than US$15.8m in the earlier years.

Given it seems CSB was built on SUM's model and pro-rating SUM's payout, CSB's $3m payout appears to be in line. 

 

The pros & cons of SUM mentioned in the SI article is basically the same discussion re CSB this week:

Pros
-    USSF gets no upside but payout is guaranteed + SUM is taking all the economic risk on the deal. No clawbacks for market conditions (such as the 2008 financial crisis), or other issues or if any national team fails to qualify for tournaments. It is also an opportunity for USSF to use the expertise of employees who are experts in the business of soccer marketing and television and media negotiations and licensing.
-    SUM’s first deal was with FMF but it grew because no broadcaster in the US was prepared to bid to acquire the English-language broadcast rights for the 2002 and 2006 men’s World Cups. SUM pitched the key MLS owners at that time to spend US$70m to acquire and produce the broadcasts. SUM then negotiated an agreement with ABC and ESPN to broadcast the tournament. SUM incurred a net loss on this deal. 
-    SUM took over IMG’s deal with USSF in 2004 as IMG wanted out from losing money. SUM also lost money for the first few years. IMG had also a deal with the CSA around the same time for $1 million/yr.
-    If SUM is going to take the financial risk and hire professional staff, etc., it is also typical in the sports business to have the first right to try to agree on continuing the relationship.
-    Deal has allowed U.S. Soccer to invest more deeply in the growth of the sport at all levels and to engage in long-term planning based on a guaranteed consistent cash flow
-    The concept of jointly selling strategic programming is not unusual in the sports industry. The USTA does it with the U.S. Open and select privately owned tennis tournaments, the NBA does it with the WNBA, etc.
-    It is not unusual at all for a for-profit company to be in the world of non-profit national governing bodies. The NBA has a commercial representation agreement with USA Basketball (with NBA executives on their board) and the NFL has a relationship with USA Football.

Cons
-    The mixing of business interests and non-profit sports governance is a recipe for disaster
-    MLS has used SUM to have a de facto monopoly on U.S. Soccer policy and power
-    Without the ability to review the deal, it is hard to pinpoint the severity of the negative effects of the relationship 
-    The unique ownership of SUM creates conflicts that need to be addressed
-    Poor communication by the current U.S. Soccer leadership has created significant confusion about the benefits provided by SUM (sounds like the CSA)
 

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/01/25/sum-soccer-united-marketing-garber-gulati-carter

Edited June 12, 2022 by red card

[ted]

On 6/11/2022 at 9:06 AM, Ally McCoist said:

I'm going to say something that people won't like to hear... 

The CPL is not appealing to casuals. Nobody I know gives a shit about it, including myself if I'm being frank. That's why it's been stagnant for 2 years. But it's good for the development of players to make a move to MLS and beyond.  

People I know who started following the men's team didn't do so because of the CPL (or CSB for that matter), they did so because of the team's success and availability of the game on cable TV.

You aren't entirely wrong and harsh truths are needed but you have something backwards.

When you say, "People I know who started following the men's team didn't do so because of the CPL (or CSB for that matter)" I winder why you think that is significant since it was never a thing. CSB was created to leverage the popularity of the National Team (what little they had and what they hoped it would grow into) to help build the CanPL. The CanPL was created to provide a development pathway and fulfill an unwritten rule for successful World Cup bids.

The entire thing is supposed to be a feedback loop to strengthen the game in Canada.

Now, I would dispute that someone who posts on a soccer-themed messaage board under the name, "Ally McCoist" could be called a, "casual" soccer fan, but where you really hit the nail on the head is, "availability of the game on cable TV". While I am thankful for what OneSoccer did when literally no one would show CMNT games, to build the CanPL into something that resonates with casuals, it must be easily available on TV both in terms of games, but also in terms of reporting and marketing.
 

[Ally McCoist]

6 minutes ago, ted said:

You aren't entirely wrong and harsh truths are needed but you have something backwards.

When you say, "People I know who started following the men's team didn't do so because of the CPL (or CSB for that matter)" I winder why you think that is significant since it was never a thing. 
 

I make this comment because those who argue for the CSB (including One Soccer employees, who, are indirectly paid by them) use the argument that the CSB has grown the game in Canada leading to more support for the National Team. The CSB hasn't done anything except, like you said, fulfil an unwritten rule for hosting World Cups.  

Until the CPL produces the next Messi or Ronaldo, or a CanMNT team that goes far in a World Cup consisting of CPL players, the CanMNT got the short end of the stick here.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Ally McCoist

[Bison44]

If you think CSB/onesoccer, mediapro hasnt done anything for the game in canada based on no new MESSI, or a bunch of CPL player on the CMNT from the first 4 years you have to take off your blinders.  There has been more media content generated on the CMNT by onesoccer in the last 3-4 years than the previous 20 with all the other networks combined. Let along the CPL interest.  All the success in Halifax..Hamilton etc...that all sprung from a burning bush??  How about the Valor gear I see walking around in b#mfuck prairie town manitoba???  The game has grown...whether we are all pissed at CSA/CSB or not.  

[Wingback6]

2 hours ago, ted said:

You aren't entirely wrong and harsh truths are needed but you have something backwards.

When you say, "People I know who started following the men's team didn't do so because of the CPL (or CSB for that matter)" I winder why you think that is significant since it was never a thing. CSB was created to leverage the popularity of the National Team (what little they had and what they hoped it would grow into) to help build the CanPL. The CanPL was created to provide a development pathway and fulfill an unwritten rule for successful World Cup bids.

The entire thing is supposed to be a feedback loop to strengthen the game in Canada.

Now, I would dispute that someone who posts on a soccer-themed messaage board under the name, "Ally McCoist" could be called a, "casual" soccer fan, but where you really hit the nail on the head is, "availability of the game on cable TV". While I am thankful for what OneSoccer did when literally no one would show CMNT games, to build the CanPL into something that resonates with casuals, it must be easily available on TV both in terms of games, but also in terms of reporting and marketing.
 

To make a profit for a handful of jerks.

[Ally McCoist]

37 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

If you think CSB/onesoccer, mediapro hasnt done anything for the game in canada based on no new MESSI, or a bunch of CPL player on the CMNT from the first 4 years you have to take off your blinders.  There has been more media content generated on the CMNT by onesoccer in the last 3-4 years than the previous 20 with all the other networks combined. Let along the CPL interest.  All the success in Halifax..Hamilton etc...that all sprung from a burning bush??  How about the Valor gear I see walking around in b#mfuck prairie town manitoba???  The game has grown...whether we are all pissed at CSA/CSB or not.  

Having a domestic league doesn't automatically mean the sport grows in your country. It's one aspect, not the be all end all. Many third world countries have domestic leagues with shit growth of the sport. Often what ends up happening is corruption and greed in many of these third world countries is what limits the sport.

And the money the CSB takes isn't spent on other aspects that are required to grow the sport (e.g. advertising, widespread viewing of the games on cable TV, funelling money into the association, etc.)

Edited June 14, 2022 by Ally McCoist

[Wingback6]

On 6/10/2022 at 1:21 AM, Soro17 said:

I have read some of your other posts, and your starting position seems to be that everyone is acting in bad faith and they are all a bunch of corrupt scammers. This is a facile and conspiratorial starting point which I should probably avoid engagement with. But...

I am on this forum because I enjoy watching the various Canadian national teams and this is one of (if not) the best places to read about them. With respect to your other points, I would say this: each amateur sports association in this country has its governance challenges. Rugby Canada is likely the worst, but Cricket Canada, Alpine Canada and Field Hockey Canada have all had recent governance issues that have made the news. I have no doubt swimming, gymnastics, name a sport, all have their problems. The answer to solving these problems, in my view, is not to have the federal government intervene in each instance where there is upset at decisions made by management of not-for-profit corporations and their boards of directors. Generally speaking, my view is that the federal government should not be in the business of reviewing, approving and undoing private contractual arrangements of not-for-profit entities and their business partners. The federal government is doing poorly on so many fronts (Phoenix payroll, failed ship-building procurement, failed military procurement, botched vaccine procurement and roll-out, staffing at airports, the list goes on) - I don't see how their involvement could help on any level. I don't think they have any unique expertise to bring to bear. Someone mentioned an audit, the reality is that the CSA has published audited financial statements from PWC, one of the big 4 global accounting firms. PWC has an obligation to withhold their audit report if they find evidence of fraud. You can look it up - PWC signed a clean audit report. As a citizen of this country, I want the federal government to focus on getting the important things right, not the petty bullshit that is the CSA and whether or not the CSA struck a bad business deal. I also realize that as a private citizen, I am not entitled to all the particulars of a private business deal, just because I read on the internet that someone thinks the deal sucks and the board must be corrupt. 

The answer to the calls for transparency and reform of course lie in CSA governance. The bylaws are available on-line and you can look up the process for nominating directors and officers. There are some obvious areas for improvement and they start with grassroots changes - i.e. putting in the hard work at the Provincial member association level to bring forth changes at the national level. Currently, the voting members (provincial associations, player reps, professional coaches) get to elect 6 directors based on regional representation, these six directors then get to elect 6 independent directors (which are then ratified by the voting members again). The board terms are staggered three-year terms, which creates board entrenchment issues meaning it is difficult to do a wholesale change of the board (there is some benefit to board continuity). In any event, all this is to say that changes can be made and there is an avenue for change if committed people want to. Changes might include revisions to the bylaws to require that truly independent and qualified directors be elected. Changes might include requiring certain professional designations in order to serve on the board. Changes could include the manner in who gets to elect directors (why not have at large positions elected by all registered players under the CSA umbrella). New board committees with established responsibilities touching on issues requiring particular expertise could struck. None of this stuff is stuff that the federal government should be doing, even if it could. 

 

As I have told others. Keep it short bro. I got better things to do. Apparently you don't. If you can't keep it under 100 words, you prob can't make an argument worth listening too.

Edited June 14, 2022 by Wingback6

[Free kick]

I have never been one to turn every stone looking for a bogie man with respect to the CSA.  I always give them the benefit of the doubt.  But this deal was a horrible deal and i don't know how people can defend it.  A measly 3 Mill a year for a marketing agreement that includes the media rights?    You have to be pretty unattractive product to only garner 3 million a year.  look at the other media deals with sports entities out there. 

And the argument about not anticipating that MNT wouldn't be good is head scratching.   Did we think that the MNT was always going to be terrible.  Going into the previous two WCQ cycles, I was pessimistic about our chances but this time was different and I sensed this as far back as when Alphonso Davies was garnering headlined with Bayern Munich.   

[SF]

26 minutes ago, Wingback6 said:

As I have told others. Keep it short bro. I got better things to do. Apparently you don't. If you can't keep it under 100 words, you prob can't make an argument worth listening too.

Honestly...he/she made some very good points.  If you don't want to read it, then don't read it...the insults aren't necessary.  And, for the record, it's "to" not "too".  Which, in a subtle way, is me insulting you, but you deserve it.

[Free kick]

56 minutes ago, Ally McCoist said:

Having a domestic league doesn't automatically mean the sport grows in your country. It's one aspect, not the be all end all. Many third world countries have domestic leagues with shit growth of the sport. Often what ends up happening is corruption and greed in many of these third world countries is what limits the sport.

 

Thank you!  I have made this same argument a number of times.   Its more important to have stable well funded clubs with owners with deep pockets than a domestic league for the sake of a domestic league. 

And, other than the fact that the team logo on the shirts says Wanderers FC, Atletico Ottawa, York United FC, Forge FC, Valour FC, Cavalry FC, FCE and Pacific FC  instead of Shooters, Serbian White Eagles, wizards, Italia, Hitman, Croatia,  what the difference between it and the old CPSL?   the standard play and talent  looks the same, the facilities are not that much different etc etc.  This only difference is that ppl in the prairie cities and Halifax (for example) can now see CPSL quality soccer in their home town. 

 

PS;  another difference is that the CSA never subsidized the CPSL by pawning off the the national teams to do so

PPS>:  if its so important for domestic league to have clubs only in one countries border, then why couldn't we call the old CPSL our national domestic league?

Edited June 14, 2022 by Free kick

[SF]

On 6/12/2022 at 2:17 PM, red card said:

Articles posted on this thread and other articles have stated or has Garber saying SUM has paid US$300 million over 19 years or US$15.8 million/yr to USSF. 

An SI article has Garber saying SUM paid guaranteed revenue of US$300 million to USSF over the life of the agreement. But then later on, SI has Garber saying SUM has paid $US190m to fund ops & programs since 2004. But guaranteed payments totalled US$300m till 2022.

The even later on, Garber says SUM's average annual payout to USSF was US$30m. This could imply the payout increased over the latter half of the agreement and the payout was lower than US$15.8m in the earlier years.

Given it seems CSB was built on SUM's model and pro-rating SUM's payout, CSB's $3m payout appears to be in line. 

 

The pros & cons of SUM mentioned in the SI article is basically the same discussion re CSB this week:

Pros
-    USSF gets no upside but payout is guaranteed + SUM is taking all the economic risk on the deal. No clawbacks for market conditions (such as the 2008 financial crisis), or other issues or if any national team fails to qualify for tournaments. It is also an opportunity for USSF to use the expertise of employees who are experts in the business of soccer marketing and television and media negotiations and licensing.
-    SUM’s first deal was with FMF but it grew because no broadcaster in the US was prepared to bid to acquire the English-language broadcast rights for the 2002 and 2006 men’s World Cups. SUM pitched the key MLS owners at that time to spend US$70m to acquire and produce the broadcasts. SUM then negotiated an agreement with ABC and ESPN to broadcast the tournament. SUM incurred a net loss on this deal. 
-    SUM took over IMG’s deal with USSF in 2004 as IMG wanted out from losing money. SUM also lost money for the first few years. IMG had also a deal with the CSA around the same time for $1 million/yr.
-    If SUM is going to take the financial risk and hire professional staff, etc., it is also typical in the sports business to have the first right to try to agree on continuing the relationship.
-    Deal has allowed U.S. Soccer to invest more deeply in the growth of the sport at all levels and to engage in long-term planning based on a guaranteed consistent cash flow
-    The concept of jointly selling strategic programming is not unusual in the sports industry. The USTA does it with the U.S. Open and select privately owned tennis tournaments, the NBA does it with the WNBA, etc.
-    It is not unusual at all for a for-profit company to be in the world of non-profit national governing bodies. The NBA has a commercial representation agreement with USA Basketball (with NBA executives on their board) and the NFL has a relationship with USA Football.

Cons
-    The mixing of business interests and non-profit sports governance is a recipe for disaster
-    MLS has used SUM to have a de facto monopoly on U.S. Soccer policy and power
-    Without the ability to review the deal, it is hard to pinpoint the severity of the negative effects of the relationship 
-    The unique ownership of SUM creates conflicts that need to be addressed
-    Poor communication by the current U.S. Soccer leadership has created significant confusion about the benefits provided by SUM (sounds like the CSA)
 

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/01/25/sum-soccer-united-marketing-garber-gulati-carter

Good summary, thanks for sharing and summarizing.

[SF]

4 minutes ago, SF said:

Good summary, thanks for sharing and summarizing.

And further to this - it seems, simply, to be an arrangement where risk and reward are transferred from the holder of the asset/brand to a third party (or quasi third). Maybe this makes sense in some respects.  Though, I would argue that very, very few genuinely successful enterprises have undertaken this approach. Sport or otherwise.

But this, in the CSB context, is still quite speculative.  The plain truth is that we simply don't have a full appreciation for the underlying arrangement. 

My sense is that the CSA made an unusually poor deal, but hard to definitively opine absent full disclosure. 

[narduch]

2 hours ago, Free kick said:

I have never been one to turn every stone looking for a bogie man with respect to the CSA.  I always give them the benefit of the doubt.  But this deal was a horrible deal and i don't know how people can defend it.  A measly 3 Mill a year for a marketing agreement that includes the media rights?    You have to be pretty unattractive product to only garner 3 million a year.  look at the other media deals with sports entities out there. 

And the argument about not anticipating that MNT wouldn't be good is head scratching.   Did we think that the MNT was always going to be terrible.  Going into the previous two WCQ cycles, I was pessimistic about our chances but this time was different and I sensed this as far back as when Alphonso Davies was garnering headlined with Bayern Munich.   

We still don't even know the true details to make such definitive statements like this.

Let's see how the U-20 qualifying goes. The current squad has 6 players from CPL teams. Perhaps this will be better than the past years of only selecting players from MLS academies.

 

[Shway]

14 minutes ago, narduch said:

We still don't even know the true details to make such definitive statements like this.

Let's see how the U-20 qualifying goes. The current squad has 6 players from CPL teams. Perhaps this will be better than the past years of only selecting players from MLS academies.

 

Fully agree.

I appreciate the deal for the existence of the CPL. Without it, we wouldn’t have a lot of the young talent we have now. Reason why my fingers are crossed that we do well at this tournament this weekend, as some of these boys could get moves elsewhere.

[Soro17]

4 hours ago, Wingback6 said:

As I have told others. Keep it short bro. I got better things to do. Apparently you don't. If you can't keep it under 100 words, you prob can't make an argument worth listening too.

It is OK to admit when you don’t understand something. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by Soro17

[Ally McCoist]

But I thought the CSB was supposed to improve soccer in this country?

[SoCalTransport]

[SpecialK]

1 hour ago, Ally McCoist said:

But I thought the CSB was supposed to improve soccer in this country?

Hahahah wheeler was not there to attack KJ and blame the fans and players again 

[ted]

23 hours ago, Ally McCoist said:

Until the CPL produces the next Messi or Ronaldo, or a CanMNT team that goes far in a World Cup consisting of CPL players, the CanMNT got the short end of the stick here.

That has not been proven. We have seen no evidence that CSB somehow gets a cut of the World Cup prize money earned by the team. We have not even seen any actual statements from the players that that is the issue.

Complaining about the CSB deal by the players is more likely to be related to appearance fees for matches in Canada and wanting a greater share of the revenue to fund their pay. That is a reasonable discussion to have but it is an issue between the CSA who signed the current deal for good and practical reasons at the time, and the players who made that deal not so great in hindsight.

The only real way out of this is for the CSA to give up a larger share of the aforementioned WC Prize Pool money so that the players are fairly compensated for their success. I'm sure it will happen and everything will be fine before anyone lands in Qatar.

[DoyleG]

On 6/13/2022 at 8:14 PM, Bison44 said:

If you think CSB/onesoccer, mediapro hasnt done anything for the game in canada based on no new MESSI, or a bunch of CPL player on the CMNT from the first 4 years you have to take off your blinders.  There has been more media content generated on the CMNT by onesoccer in the last 3-4 years than the previous 20 with all the other networks combined. Let along the CPL interest.  All the success in Halifax..Hamilton etc...that all sprung from a burning bush??  How about the Valor gear I see walking around in b#mfuck prairie town manitoba???  The game has grown...whether we are all pissed at CSA/CSB or not.  

When one looks at the real critics of the CanPL and how it's "screwing" the CMNT, they generally have something TFC-related tattooed somewhere on their body.

[RS]

6 hours ago, DoyleG said:

When one looks at the real critics of the CanPL and how it's "screwing" the CMNT, they generally have something TFC-related tattooed somewhere on their body.

I'm sure someone named @Ally McCoist, who @Bison44 was responding to, is covered in TFC tattoos.

[Cheeta]

51 minutes ago, RS said:

I'm sure someone named @Ally McCoist, who @Bison44 was responding to, is covered in TFC tattoos.

Don't know about Ally McCoist but I'd take a punt on Bison44 having gotten some KFC ink after trying the Spicy Chicken Sandwich.

OHHH.  TFC.  

My bad.  As you were.

[narduch]

7 hours ago, DoyleG said:

When one looks at the real critics of the CanPL and how it's "screwing" the CMNT, they generally have something TFC-related tattooed somewhere on their body.

Side bar. I found it interesting that the Whitecaps only started 1 Canadian yesterday. 

But people really want to argue the CPL isn't necessary or helping 

[Soro17]

1 hour ago, narduch said:

Side bar. I found it interesting that the Whitecaps only started 1 Canadian yesterday. 

But people really want to argue the CPL isn't necessary or helping 

Depending on the formation, the Caps ‘best 11’ (sad as it is) probably doesn’t have any Canadians in it. Cavallini may squeeze in somehow, but that is about it. The bench is of course a different story.